Author Archive

I had unexpected knee surgery recently and received a “Get Well” gift from my friends and colleagues, Laurie and John Slifka, in the form of the book, The Cubs Way (by Tom Verducci), which was especially meaningful coming from die hard St. Louis Cardinal fans. The book traces the genesis of their 2016 Championship season, using the World Series as the backdrop.

If you are a baseball fan, you know who Theo Epstein is. He became the youngest General Manager in baseball when he took that position with the Boston Red Sox (28 years old), and took them to their first championship in 86 years, a drought exceeded only by the Cubs. After winning another championship, he came to Chicago to try to bring the same magic to the North Side’s “Lovable Losers,” the Cubs.

Epstein brought with him some staff from Boston and kept some staff from the Cubs, and gracefully integrated them into a team by creating a spirit of collaboration and a focus on winning. Listening to their input, he created a 259 page manual called “The Cubs Way.” It covered every aspect of behavior on and off the field, from the top of the hierarchy to the bat boys.

I am writing this blog piece and this particular topic because of several themes I have been pursuing in my writing and presentations regarding topics such as how to create a culture and the role that trust plays in that process, and then how trust must be established at the level of the supervisor-subordinate relationship where feedback is difficult and sparse.

Trust, Respect and Culture

I believe that trust and respect are created between people when honest feedback is given, both the favorable and unfavorable. This is in direct contrast to the “strengths only” movement that has gained much too much popularity. I believe if you respect a person, you are honest with them.

So I had to put down the book and take up the keyboard as I was reading this book as Verducci relates parts of Epstein’s philosophy that became a key part of “The Cubs Way”:

“For years baseball teams rarely shared evaluations about players with the players themselves… It occurred to Epstein that the first time a team truly tells a player he’s not good enough is when it’s too late – when it releases him. It sounded absurd to him that a team wouldn’t tell a player about his strengths and weaknesses… It (a player development plan) does really create a great connection with the player and helps him develop himself… Epstein wanted a culture in which the players could trust the front office. And the way to help build that trust was to develop an open and honest personal connection.” (pp. 104-105).

For fun, they dug out an old scouting report on one of the coaches, and the report said that he was slow at turning double plays. The coach was angry; “Why didn’t anyone tell me I needed to work on my turns?… I would have gotten to the big leagues so much quicker!”

Unfavorable Feedback is Better than None

I just completed chairing a dissertation that confirmed what most research says, i.e., that the most engaged employees are those that get both favorable and unfavorable feedback, and the least engaged are those who get neither. Employees who get mostly unfavorable feedback are more engaged than those who get neither, and about the same as people who get mostly favorable feedback.

This philosophy is a core part of the culture the Cubs have built, “The Cubs Way.” Your organization should have a “Way” as well. When a Cubs employee does something exceptional, they yell out, “That Cub!!!” And the example is set by the leaders; their behavior sets the culture.

The current climate surrounding performance appraisals leans toward the abandonment of the administrative exercise we all have come to despise and, instead, replace it with a feedback culture of continuous exchanges between manager and direct report. The solution is not new, so why has it not been implemented in more organizations?

The content must be derived from the organization’s strategy and values, which are unique to that organization. Often derived from the organization’s values, they can be explicit (the ones that hang on the wall) or implicit (which some people call “culture”). To me, “strategic” and “off-the-shelf” is an oxymoron and the two words cannot be used in the same sentence (though I just did).

Participation must be inclusive, i.e., a census of the leaders/managers in the organizational unit (e.g., total company, division, location, function, level). I say “leaders/managers” because a true 360 requires that subordinates are a rater group. One reason for this requirement is that I (and many others) believe 360’s, under the right circumstances, can be used to make personnel decisions and that usually requires comparing individuals, which, in turn, requires that everyone have available the same data. This requirement also enables us to use Strategic 360’s to create organizational change, as in “large scale change occurs when a lot of people change just a little.”

The process must be designed and implemented in such a way that the results are sufficiently reliable (we have already established content validity in requirement #1) that we can use them to make decisions about the leaders (as in #4). This is not an easy goal to achieve, even though benchmark studies continue to indicate that 360’s are the most commonly used form of assessment in both public and private sectors.

The results of Strategic 360’s are integrated with important talent management and development processes, such as leadership development and training, performance management, staffing (internal movement), succession planning, and high potential processes. Research indicates that properly implemented 360 results can not only more reliable (in a statistical meaning) than single-source ratings, but are also more fair to minorities, women, and older workers. Integration into HR systems also brings with it accountability, whether driven by the process or internally (self) driven because the leader knows that the results matter.

For this past year, I have teamed with Allan Church, John Fleenor and Dale Rose to recruit an all-star roster of practitioners in our field to contribute chapters for an edited book, The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback (Oxford University Press). Though a continuation of many of the themes covered in The Handbook of Multisource Feedback (Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001), this Handbook will have more of a practitioner focus with several case studies and new trends in this field.

The four of us will also host a panel discussion at the Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in Chicago on April 19 at Noon. Joined by Michael Campion and Janine Waclawksi (PepsiCo), we will present our learnings and observations from assembling the thirty-chapter volume.

The 3D Group and PepsiCo will also host another in our series of semi-annual meetings of the Strategic 360 Forum, a consortium of organizations that use 360 Feedback for strategic purposes and are interested in sharing best practices. This full day meeting will be held in Chicago on April 17 with several Handbook contributors leading discussions on various topics. For more information, go to the 3D Group website (https://3dgroup.net/strategic-360-feedback-forum/).

Finally, Strategic 360 Feedback will continue to be the most powerful tool in our kit for reliably measuring leadership behaviors that form the basis for engagement, motivation, productivity and retention. Using 360’s, we can create culture change and develop leaders by defining, measuring, and holding leaders accountable for behaving consistently with organizational goals and values.

Artificial Intelligence is not only here to stay, it may well outlive and replace most of us. During this rapidly evolving introduction of AI into our lives (sometimes without our knowledge and/or consent; see Amazon.com’s recent experience with lawsuits aimed at their Alexa division), we should be vigilant regarding its use.

I have been invited to participate in a conversation hour at the next SIOP Conference (in Chicago in April, 2018) on the implications of AI for our profession and organizations in general. In our proposal writing process, I came upon this article about the use of AI in the recruiting and hiring process as used by Unilever (https://goo.gl/KH2LVW).

Frankly, it blows my mind. Or should I say, blows up.

Almost every day, my favorite blog, The LowDown (thelowdownblog.com), seems to have a new article regarding AI, but I hadn’t thought enough about how it will affect our profession as IO Psychologist and our clients who look to us for expertise in helping them to make better decisions about current and prospective employees. My hunch is that we (again, as a profession) are lagging behind in anticipating the issues coming down the pike on the back of AI tools.

The Unilever case study is remarkable for many reasons. They claim great efficiencies that AI creates in terms of handling large numbers of potential applicants at significant cost savings. As an IO Psychologist, I became curious as to accuracy (i.e., validity) of their screens and evidence for job-relatedness.

At the risk of serving as free advertising, I want to draw your attention to the two vendors that Unilever uses in their hiring process, Pymetrics and HireVue. Pymetrics uses games to assess candidates and to apply neuroscience to the decision to progress or not. For those who pass, they are funneled into the HireVue interview technology, though not a “live” interview. Applicants are evaluated for key words, body language and tone.

Maybe you want to search their websites with me. Here are two companies that are affecting the lives of thousands of people just with this one experience.

The Pymetrics website says (regarding validity), “The games have been validated through decades of use in neuroscience and cognitive psychology research settings to identify and evaluate people’s cognitive, emotional, and social traits. Several of the games have physical analogues dating back to the 19th century.” (https://goo.gl/iq5xgT) Not a word about being job related or predicting actual job performance. They speak of reducing bias. I can do that too. Give me a coin to flip. That would be even faster (though I could still charge a lot for my flipping skill).

So who are these people? HireVue’s founder has a Master’s in finance. No evidence of science, but they look like they are having fun! Pymetrics does have a neuroscientist on their senior team, and some other neuroscientists lurking.

Fast, fun and flexible. Is that our mantra for best practices in making decisions about people? Maybe so. They seem to be doing quite well. “They” being the vendors, maybe not so much the applicants.

Artificial Intelligence is not only here to stay, it may well outlive and replace most of us. During this rapidly evolving introduction of AI into our lives (sometimes without our knowledge and/or consent; see Amazon.com’s recent experience with lawsuits aimed at their Alexa division).

I have been invited to participate in a conversation hour at the next SIOP Conference (in Chicago in April, 2018) on the implications of AI for our profession and organizations in general. In our proposal writing process, I came upon this article about the use of AI in the recruiting and hiring process as used by Unilever (https://goo.gl/KH2LVW).

Frankly, it blows my mind. Or should I say, blows up.

Almost every day, my favorite blog, The LowDown (thelowdownblog.com), seems to have a new article regarding AI, but I hadn’t thought enough about how it will affect our profession as IO Psychologist and our clients who look to us for expertise in helping them to make better decisions about current and prospective employees. My hunch is that we (again, as a profession) are lagging behind in anticipating the issues coming down the pike on the back of AI tools.

The Unilever case study is remarkable for many reasons. They claim great efficiencies that AI creates in terms of handling large numbers of potential applicants at significant cost savings. As an IO Psychologist, I became curious as to accuracy (i.e., validity) of their screens and evidence for job-relatedness.

At the risk of serving as free advertising, I want to draw your attention to the two vendors that Unilever uses in their hiring process, Pymetrics and HireVue. Pymetrics uses games to assess candidates and to apply neuroscience to the decision to progress or not. For those who pass, they are funneled into the HireVue interview technology, though not a “live” interview. Applicants are evaluated for key words, body language and tone.

Maybe you want to search their websites with me. Here are two companies that are affecting the lives of thousands of people just with this one experience.

The Pymetrics website says (regarding validity), “The games have been validated through decades of use in neuroscience and cognitive psychology research settings to identify and evaluate people’s cognitive, emotional, and social traits. Several of the games have physical analogues dating back to the 19th century.” (https://goo.gl/iq5xgT) Not a word about being job related or predicting actual job performance. They speak of reducing bias. I can do that too. Give me a coin to flip. That would be even faster (though I could still charge a lot for my flipping skill).

So who are these people? HireVue’s founder has a Master’s in finance. No evidence of science, but they look like they are having fun! Pymetrics does have a neuroscientist on their senior team, and some other neuroscientists lurking.

Fast, fun and flexible. Is that our mantra for best practices in making decisions about people? Maybe so. They seem to be doing quite well. “They” being the vendors, maybe not so much the applicants.

There were a couple of interesting webinars in the last 2 weeks on the topic of performance management trends. One was hosted by AON (Levi Segal and Seymour Adler) and the other by Talent Quarterly (Dave Ulrich, hosted by Marc Effron).

I (Dave) am particularly interested in this topic at this moment because I will be hosting my own discussion/debate on this topic at SHRM Florida on August 31 in Orlando. There I will be joined by Keith Lykins (Lykins International) and Joann Gamicchia (Orange County Clerk of Courts) to share our perspectives and engage the audience in an exchange.

As a result, I recently became aware of work by Gerry Ledford regarding trends in the field of performance management (http://goo.gl/lpv8OZ). He writes about “cutting-edge performance management,” which is characterized by three things: Ongoing feedback, ratingless reviews, and crowd-sourced feedback.

While there has been a lot of banter recently about how to create ongoing discussions between managers and their direct reports, what really caught my attention was this statement about crowd-sourced feedback (CSF):

There is very little written about and almost no research on this growing area, but we think it may replace traditional 360 feedback over time. It uses a technology (social media) that most employees know, it is delivered in real time rather than annually, and the feedback is free form and therefore less artificial than a 360 rating form.

It is interesting to hear a well respected author suggest that a feedback method with a fairly sizable research base might be replaced by another method because the new method is 1) familiar, 2) faster, and 3) easier to do. This sounds a little like replacing a healthy nutritious meal with fast food. It’s not that fast food is without any merit – certainly we’ve all traveled enough to know that sometimes you just need something quick and easy. But let’s not jump too quickly into assuming that fast-food-feedback will serve the same needs as 360° feedback. Gerry is certainly correct that crowd-sourced feedback does not qualify as 360° feedback, especially if you compare it to the definition that we (Bracken, Rose & Church, in press) have proposed:

360° Feedback is a process for collecting, quantifying, and reporting co-worker observations about an individual (i.e., a ratee) that facilitates/enables three specific data-driven/based outcomes: (a) the collection of rater perceptions of the degree to which specific behaviors are exhibited; (b) the analysis of meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions across multiple ratees, between specific groups of raters for an individual ratee, and changes over time; and (c) the creation of sustainable individual, group and /or organizational change in behaviors valued by the organization.

At this point, it is difficult to make generalizations and comparison with 360° Feedback because CSF comes in many different forms. Josh Bersin’s review of the emerging feedback market has no clear category for the type of feedback system Ledford describes. Just from what we have read in various articles, we see that CSF might be:

“Push” feedback (ratees asking for feedback)

“Pull” feedback (raters provide feedback on their own, at their own initiative)

“Event” oriented (e.g., how did I do in a presentation?), though this is not really “ongoing”

CSF makes no allowance for “opportunity to observe” error/bias, i.e., the competence and motivation of the source (rater)

CSF has no method to track individual or group change over time

By using standardized survey content, 360s allow strategically-aligned behavior change across the system

Use of feedback to create real change is greater with 360s (until proven otherwise)

Well done 360s have safeguards against retaliation and misuse

Normative comparisons to other company leaders is an option with 360s

360s can be aggregated to view company-wide or system-wide trends that can be compared over time (crowd sourcing cannot)

Unlike CSF, 360s allow for census participation – all leaders can be directed to participate in a standardized process; allowing leaders to create organization-wide shifts in behavior and culture.

CSF’s are equivalent to 1-2 item 360’s in most cases where the rater is providing feedback on a very narrow set of behaviors (which may or may not be specified, may or may not be actionable). They are narrowly focused on content that may or may not be aligned with organizational competencies and/or values. They may be more timely than regularly scheduled 360’s, but not necessarily so (CSF may not be timely, and 360’s do not have to be just annual events). The opportunity for timeliness may be an illusion, an opportunity offered but not always fulfilled.

Dr. Ledford’s call for more research needs to be answered. Here are some things we would like to know:

What are the various contexts in which CSF is collected? (We certainly should combine different methods in examining the effectiveness of the feedback, though we could compare methods).

Do ratees actually use the feedback (i.e., change their behavior, let alone pay attention to it)?

Does the novelty wear off over time?

What types of individuals avoid CSF vs. those who use it frequently? (are high performing early career employees more likely to use CSF than veterans with a long track record of success?)

What is the differential effect due to type of CSF?

What are the opinions of CSF? For users, nonusers and other stakeholders (e.g., HR, management)?

While we are certainly encouraged that there is so much interest in finding ways to improve employee feedback, it’s worth recognizing that 360° Feedback has a long history of success helping leaders to learn from their environment. Further, there is a fair amount of research and consensus around best practice in 360° Feedback. Hopefully researchers and practitioners will take a careful look at new feedback methods like CSF. Until we have a longer track record and much more experience with CFS, it may be a bit premature to assume that CFS will fully serve an organization’s need for valid feedback that is useful for guiding a wide range of talent decisions.

This is not necessarily an either/or choice between using 360° Feedback and CSF. But we don’t think it should ever be a “CSF only” choice.

I received an email invitation in my In Box recently for a webinar titled, “Recognition as the Foundation for a More Human Workforce.” I deleted it but then went back to read it in more detail.

One of the reasons I deleted it is that it struck as sending the wrong message. In fact, it does say “THE” foundation, not just “A” foundation. All my experience, intuition, and even personal research tells me that this proposition is just plain wrong.

As relating to a “human” workforce, I recalled the piece by Emma Seppal in HBR (“Managers create more wellness than wellness plans do”) that speaks to the power of organizations and leaders characterized by trust, forgiveness, understanding, empathy, generosity, and respect. Is recognition lurking in there? Perhaps, but there is a big difference between recognition that is a daily spontaneous habit and what is viewed as a program.

When I was working with Dana Costar to design an upward feedback instrument for managers, we did a lot of background reading on possible drivers of perceptions of manager effectiveness. It seemed to us that recognition was fairly far down the list, but recognition did keep popping up. So we somewhat grudgingly did include it as a dimension in our instrument to see how it stacked up when the data came in.

Our results (Costar & Bracken, 2014) on an international sample of 82 leaders showed that Trust is the leading driver of ratings of manager effectiveness, while Recognition fell far down the list. (As an aside, Trust was behind Facilitating Development in ratings of effectiveness as a Coach, but still far ahead of Recognition.)

Lolly Daskal’s blog in Inc. has a list of leadership “beliefs” (characteristics/behaviors) where says “Honoring Trust” is the “first job of a leader.” But her list includes many other trust builders as well:

Leading by Example

Accepting Accountability

Leading with Integrity

Encompassing Humility

Manifesting Loyalty

Showing Respect

Leading with Character

(I see that recognition, “Exhibiting Appreciation” does make the list but is, in my opinion, overwhelmed by these other factors and a cousin to recognition.)

They motivate every single employee to take action and engage employees with a compelling mission and vision.

They have the assertiveness to drive outcomes and the ability to overcome adversity and resistance.

They create a culture of clear accountability.

They build relationships that create trust, open dialogue, and full transparency.

They make decisions based on productivity, not politics.

We don’t see recognition on this list either, but we do see trust.

Vendors are pushing recognition apps. I believe they fall in the category of activities that are relatively harmless but of little value. If there is harm (besides wasted expense) it is that they, by nature, are targeted only at positive feedback. Then there is a lost opportunity to create awareness of other important behavioral/skill deficits.

I have proposed that “Trust” comes in two forms: Trusts and Trusted. Turned into behaviors that can be defined, developed and measured, they look like this:

Trust is one of those constructs that may be elusive to pin down definitionally, but we all know it and, more importantly, feel it when we experience it. Unfortunately (tongue deeply embedded in cheek) there will never be a “trust” app. But trust can be “deleted” just as fast as an app with no opportunity to reinstall.

Trust is the real foundation of a human workforce. Define it, develop it and measure it. Then your organization has a chance of really being “human.”

We are confusing ourselves and those employees who hold authority positions in our organizations with a plethora of role labels, each of which is valid and viable, but poorly defined and almost impossible to fulfill at the same time. I give you the examples of Manager, Coach, Leader, and (most recently) SuperBoss.

I have recently discovered Tanmay Vora (qaspire.com)and his wonderful pictorial depictions, often of literature he has read and wishes to summarize. Here is one that captures “Leadership” that he himself created in all its complexity.

No wonder our “leaders” are overwhelmed! This is a great list but really are nine different roles with lots of room for discussion, debate and overlap. In the process of having that discussion, we should carve out sub roles and point out that no one can be good at all these things and certainly not do them all at the same time. Even “SuperBosses” are not good at everything, despite the “super” part.

Let’s begin with “SuperBoss” because it also contains the label “boss,” another label that we can apply to people in positions of authority (formal and informal). I had the privilege to hear Dr. Sydney Finkelstein speak recently on the topic of “SuperBosses,” coinciding with the recent publication of his book of the same name. Examples of people he uses to describe the profile of Superboss (along with a 360 Feedback behavioral inventory) is quite diverse: Jazz legend Miles Davis, restaurateur Alice Waters, fashion iconoclast Ralph Lauren, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, producer George Lucas, SNL creator Lorne Michaels, NFL coach Bill Walsh, and hedge fund manager Julian Robertson. Dr. Finkelstein asserts that a “SuperBoss” can be created (i.e., developed), though I am not sure how many a given business could tolerate.

I had the temerity to inquire during the Q&A as to why he chose to build on the label of “boss” when it has many negative connotations, including associations with the Mafia (think of The Godfather). Was Vito Corleone a good Superboss? Or Michael, for that matter? Dr. Finkelstein shared that his first working title was indeed “Godfathers” but was dissuaded from that course due to multiple problems, not the least of which was gender-related.

Speaking of boss, this graphic has recently resurfaced on LinkedIn and is incredibly revealing. We obviously were not in the head of whomever created it, but it has some useful messages to reflect upon. On one hand, the Boss is in a position can’t help but generate negative feelings. But note that a) the team is trying to get over a ditch, and b) the Boss is pointing (not whipping), probably talking or shouting, and c) the platform says “MISSION” to infer that everyone knows what is trying to be accomplished (and evidently of some magnitude).

Despite the negative emotions you may have towards this “Boss,” I propose that the Boss is probably of more use than the Leader below, and should be called “Manager.” In the movie “Gettysburg,” neither Lee nor Grant are out there leading the charge. Each sets the “mission” and assigns others to carry it out, with many “others” required to do so, literally sitting at the rear of the attack.

The time for being the Leader is also important, and sometimes does require both setting the lead by getting on the ground at the front of the line (think “Steward”) , and getting one’s “hands dirty” in the process. What isn’t shown here is the role of the Leader in interfacing with the rest of the organization on behalf of the group, both vertically (upward) and horizontally (both internal and, if applicable, externally).

No wonder our “leaders” (maybe “boss” is better?) are confused and overwhelmed!

And then there’s the Coach. Being a “coach” while leading a team is a totally different set of skills and behaviors from those of Manager and Leader, let alone SuperBoss. Here’s another great Tanmay Vora graphic from reading the work of Lisa Haneberg.

There is a time and place for a Boss to be a Coach as well, and, as shown here, not an easy set of skills and behaviors to acquire and hone. These capabilities should be set aside from those of being Manager, Leader and SuperBoss so that they can be communicated, developed, measured and tracked (i.e., create accountability) in a clear message.

One thing all four roles (Manager, Coach, Leader, Superboss) have in common is that they each should “inspire action,” (though that “role” surprisingly is not included in the “Roles for Great Leadership” above). Each role does it in a different manner and, in general, with different emphasis on the individual versus the group.

The Forum Corporation published this study on LinkedIn (4/28/16) regarding competencies for first-level leaders. I would contend that this list further reinforces the need for differentiation of roles and their associated competencies in support of development and assessment:

Finally, I was pointed to this video (https://goo.gl/XfFQnR) of Joel Trammel who makes the distinction between Manager and Leader (and, for CEO’s, Commander). He goes on to say that he would prefer an organization full of Managers over having a bunch of Leaders. Clearly his mental model of “leader” is very specific and has little overlap with that of Manager.

In addition to inspiring action, there are clearly two other common denominators that create the foundation for any kind of positive relationship between Boss and his/her direct reports: Trusted and Trusts. Being Trusted springs from having integrity, being honest and being consistent. Being Trusting (or Trusts) happens as the boss shows respect and dignity, including empowering the direct reports to demonstrate their own talents.

In a nutshell, we might envision the Manager role as being depicted like this. Here I use the label “manager” deliberately to differentiate it from “leader,” though it does show the overlap with the “coach” aspect of the position. Most importantly, each of the 4 activities and the Trust/Trusted foundation must be described in behavioral terms in order to help all stakeholders understand what they require and how to develop them. “Culture” and “Goals” represent the organizational (contextual) environment that creates alignment for those behaviors.

Here are some basic role definitions:

Role

Description

Manager

Ensures that day-to-day work requirements are achieved in alignment with organizational goals and values.

Coach

Partners with an employee to define and implement effective solutions for problems and/or ongoing work processes.

Developer

Partners with an employee to identify needs for short term and long term (career) development, and implements plans accordingly.

Leader

Coordinates across team members, represents the team vertically (upward) and horizontally (work groups, customer) to ensure alignment and motivation.

Both the supporters and attackers of our Performance Management systems know that supervisors universally need to be better at providing feedback and developing their direct reports, all while accomplishing organizationally-driven performance requirements. This is a complex set of skills and behaviors that are best taught and developed on the job. That is done most effectively when sub roles are clearly defined, both for the benefit of the supervisors and the DR’s. We need to choose our labels carefully and ensure consensus when we describe a “boss.”